I actually need to re-listen, it's been a while, but what it comes down to is that the word "rights" is too flawed, it is easily manipulated.

That is true of any word when the audience in question is made up of Weakmen.

It's easy to say that I have the right to do what I want as long as I don't hurt others, it's easy to say I have a right to free speech, etc.. the problem is that it is too easy to start applying rights to anything else.. I have a right to free health care, I have a right to education, etc..

If that is Molyneux's thesis, it's a loser because if presupposes the inability of rational and clued-in men of the proper attitude are not able to refute the claims with cold and clinically cruel demolition.

I believe he ends up falling back on NAP, but again I'll have to re-watch. I recommend you do, too. At least 10 or 15 minutes.

The NAP seems insufficient to me. I think there are better instruments to the same end.

"The fact is that the average man's love of liberty is nine-tenths imaginary, exactly like his love of sense, justice and truth. Liberty is not a thing for the great masses of men. It is the exclusive possession of a small and disreputable minority, like knowledge, courage and honor. It takes a special sort of man to understand and enjoy liberty - and he is usually an outlaw in democratic societies."-- H.L. Mencken

I think you'll find the gray region between your Freeman and Weakman is incredibly more vast than that found through morality-testing hypotheticals. Unless you only want to consider pure Freemen. And that's to LOL.

Not sure of your meaning here.

"The fact is that the average man's love of liberty is nine-tenths imaginary, exactly like his love of sense, justice and truth. Liberty is not a thing for the great masses of men. It is the exclusive possession of a small and disreputable minority, like knowledge, courage and honor. It takes a special sort of man to understand and enjoy liberty - and he is usually an outlaw in democratic societies."-- H.L. Mencken

"The fact is that the average man's love of liberty is nine-tenths imaginary, exactly like his love of sense, justice and truth. Liberty is not a thing for the great masses of men. It is the exclusive possession of a small and disreputable minority, like knowledge, courage and honor. It takes a special sort of man to understand and enjoy liberty - and he is usually an outlaw in democratic societies."-- H.L. Mencken

Also, @undergroundrr , since you tacked up the Animal Farm poster, let's get into it a little more:

Which was the more ridiculous: the original motto, or the revised one?

I would say the original. The revised was at least closer to the truth, while dutifully phrasing it to remain within the confines of barnyard PC acceptability. Obviously animals are in no way equal, in no way whatsoever. A horse is not equal to a chicken. A pure-bred champion horse is not equal to a mongrel horse. Etc., etc. "All animals are equal" is simply a lie, counter to all reality. "Some animals are better than others" is the absolute truth, irrefutable and eternal.

Equality for equals. If you will not defend your rights, then you have them not. Equality for equals stems as much from attitude as anything else, if not more.

"Will not" is very different from "cannot". And here my notion of equality only for equals comes into sharper focus. A right is only a right if one asserts it. If I claim not my own life, then why would another be at fault for laying claim to it? Is there any special circumstance that elevates a man's very life above the objective status of a tree branch one finds on a forest trail? If I can pick up such a twig and claim it as mine in the absence of any countervailing claim, why then can I not do it with the life of another man?

These are serious, non-rhetorical questions of a philosophical nature. It would be interesting to see a valid and convincing explanation in support of special status. The emotional argument, while compelling for obvious reasons, doesn't cut it in the least.

Those incapable of asserting their claims presents a somewhat trickier proposition. But those who are perfectly able to assert their claims, yet fail to do so - have they not renounced those claims? There is the strong and IMO valid argument in favor of the negative right, which holds sacrosanct the fundamental claims inherent to all men such that we as individuals are not called upon by others to reassert our rights fifteen thousand times per minute against the criminal challenges of others. But what of the case where some party, oh I dunno... lets just say "government", violates the people's rights over and over again on a minute by minute basis? While it is true that government should not commit such violations in the first place, the reality is that they do so while claiming authority, rendering such situations under very special light because they claim justice in such acts. Such claims cannot, IMO, remain unanswered. In the absence of credibly forceful defensive measures by those violated, are the claims of justice not given tacit acceptance, thereby effectively constituting renunciation of one's claims? If you will not defend your rights against positive threat, when perfectly capable of doing so, have you not turned your back to those claims in all positive fact?

Or are we to posit the only other possibility, that those rights are sacrosanct no matter what we might do in their defense, including nothing? This may be proper principle in evidence, but what of positive practice? My rights mean little as I lay, face down in the mud, a hobnailed jack-boot on my neck.

What do you all think?

"The fact is that the average man's love of liberty is nine-tenths imaginary, exactly like his love of sense, justice and truth. Liberty is not a thing for the great masses of men. It is the exclusive possession of a small and disreputable minority, like knowledge, courage and honor. It takes a special sort of man to understand and enjoy liberty - and he is usually an outlaw in democratic societies."-- H.L. Mencken

That is not to say there is no difference in abilities or talents,, or acquired wealth.

This +rep.

Originally Posted by Ron Paul

The intellectual battle for liberty can appear to be a lonely one at times. However, the numbers are not as important as the principles that we hold. Leonard Read always taught that "it's not a numbers game, but an ideological game." That's why it's important to continue to provide a principled philosophy as to what the role of government ought to be, despite the numbers that stare us in the face.

Liberty is lost through complacency and a subservient mindset. When we accept or even welcome automobile checkpoints, random searches, mandatory identification cards, and paramilitary police in our streets, we have lost a vital part of our American heritage. America was born of protest, revolution, and mistrust of government. Subservient societies neither maintain nor deserve freedom for long.
Ron Paul 2004

Or are we to posit the only other possibility, that those rights are sacrosanct no matter what we might do in their defense, including nothing? This may be proper principle in evidence, but what of positive practice? My rights mean little as I lay, face down in the mud, a hobnailed jack-boot on my neck.

What do you all think?

I think I have been there far too often.

Liberty is lost through complacency and a subservient mindset. When we accept or even welcome automobile checkpoints, random searches, mandatory identification cards, and paramilitary police in our streets, we have lost a vital part of our American heritage. America was born of protest, revolution, and mistrust of government. Subservient societies neither maintain nor deserve freedom for long.
Ron Paul 2004

I agreed with your comment, didn't think it needed any additional input.

We ask you to be so good as to pass a law requiring the closing of all windows, dormers, skylights, inside and outside shutters, curtains, casements, bull's-eyes, deadlights, and blinds — in short, all openings, holes, chinks, and fissures through which the light of the sun is wont to enter houses, to the detriment of the fair industries with which, we are proud to say, we have endowed the country, a country that cannot, without betraying ingratitude, abandon us today to so unequal a combat.

Also, @undergroundrr , since you tacked up the Animal Farm poster, let's get into it a little more:

Which was the more ridiculous: the original motto, or the revised one?

I would say the original. The revised was at least closer to the truth, while dutifully phrasing it to remain within the confines of barnyard PC acceptability. Obviously animals are in no way equal, in no way whatsoever. A horse is not equal to a chicken. A pure-bred champion horse is not equal to a mongrel horse. Etc., etc. "All animals are equal" is simply a lie, counter to all reality. "Some animals are better than others" is the absolute truth, irrefutable and eternal.

The author wasn't implying a moral framework by which to assign some normative value judgement to different animal species. Animal Farm is a satire, not an attempt to write a biology textbook.

We ask you to be so good as to pass a law requiring the closing of all windows, dormers, skylights, inside and outside shutters, curtains, casements, bull's-eyes, deadlights, and blinds — in short, all openings, holes, chinks, and fissures through which the light of the sun is wont to enter houses, to the detriment of the fair industries with which, we are proud to say, we have endowed the country, a country that cannot, without betraying ingratitude, abandon us today to so unequal a combat.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" -Thomas Jefferson, the Declaration of Independence.

"To understand political power, we must consider the condition in which nature puts all men. It is a state of perfect freedom to do as they wish and dispose of themselves and their possessions as they think fit, within the bounds of the laws of nature. They need not ask permission or the consent of any other man.The state of nature is also a state of equality.No one has more power or authority than another. Since all human beings have the same advantages and the use of the same skills, they should be equal to each other. The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it. Reason is the law. It teaches that all men are equal and independent, and that no one ought to harm another in his life, liberty, or possessions." -John Locke, Two Treatises On Government

Whether you think God gives you equal rights or you're an atheist and believes that mere human biology gives you equal human rights, it is all the same. All people are equal, irregardless of where they are from or where they live, their age, their sex, their religion, everything.

“Maybe I forgot to mention something to you: I don’t believe in queens. You think freedom is something you can give and take on a whim. But to your people, freedom is as essential as air. And without it, there is no life. There is only darkness.” -Zaheer

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" -Thomas Jefferson, the Declaration of Independence.

"To understand political power, we must consider the condition in which nature puts all men. It is a state of perfect freedom to do as they wish and dispose of themselves and their possessions as they think fit, within the bounds of the laws of nature. They need not ask permission or the consent of any other man.The state of nature is also a state of equality.No one has more power or authority than another. Since all human beings have the same advantages and the use of the same skills, they should be equal to each other. The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it. Reason is the law. It teaches that all men are equal and independent, and that no one ought to harm another in his life, liberty, or possessions." -John Locke, Two Treatises On Government

Whether you think God gives you equal rights or you're an atheist and believes that mere human biology gives you equal human rights, it is all the same. All people are equal, irregardless of where they are from or where they live, their age, their sex, their religion, everything.

Like the NAP this is a good and noble idea.........

Until somebody with a bigger stick and a less pure ideology comes along.

Until somebody with a bigger stick and a less pure ideology comes along.

Rights are what you're willing to die to protect not words in a tome.

If you're willing to live and die like a pig then there are no important ways in which you are not a pig.

Words in a tome tell you what things are worth dying for. If you aren't educated then you end like so many American soldiers, dying for something stupid to benefit those who do know how to use the words in the book to their own ends.

Book of Eli was right about that.

“Maybe I forgot to mention something to you: I don’t believe in queens. You think freedom is something you can give and take on a whim. But to your people, freedom is as essential as air. And without it, there is no life. There is only darkness.” -Zaheer

If you're willing to live and die like a pig then there are no important ways in which you are not a pig.

Words in a tome tell you what things are worth dying for. If you aren't educated then you end like so many American soldiers, dying for something stupid to benefit those who do know how to use the words in the book to their own ends.

Book of Eli was right about that.

Granted, tomes have their place but trying to discuss philosophical differences with government agents pointing automatic weapons at you doesn't make sense....

One must know what or who he is willing to die for before he must decide....

I agreed with your comment, didn't think it needed any additional input.

Well, it all depends on what you're trying to have happen, I guess. You had a-ccused-sked me and a couple others of being anti-rights villains, wanting to take away your precious God-given Rights. So then when it turns out to not be true... seems like that would warrant something.

So, again, it all depends on what you are trying to have happen here. If you were wanting to have a conversation, replying would have been natural. If you're wanting to just virtue-signal and be annoying, then yeah, throwing around accusations and then ignoring replies would be the best course.

If you were wanting to have a conversation, replying would have been natural.

Well, I also took my wife and kids out of town for a several days of fresh air in southern Oklahoma. Please don't feel put out, my friend.

We ask you to be so good as to pass a law requiring the closing of all windows, dormers, skylights, inside and outside shutters, curtains, casements, bull's-eyes, deadlights, and blinds — in short, all openings, holes, chinks, and fissures through which the light of the sun is wont to enter houses, to the detriment of the fair industries with which, we are proud to say, we have endowed the country, a country that cannot, without betraying ingratitude, abandon us today to so unequal a combat.

Well, Lenin and Stalin if we're to be literal. Trotsky gets a pass. But as with any work of art, people of all worldviews (and levels of equality) will steal it for their own bias.

And as with so much good art, interpretation is somewhat open. Here's the one I like. Rights (the equal ones) will be violated in proportion to the authoritarianism of the current power structure. In Animal Farm, the various animals abdicate their own rights to Trumpoleon presuming that his strong leadership will protect them from outside threats.

We ask you to be so good as to pass a law requiring the closing of all windows, dormers, skylights, inside and outside shutters, curtains, casements, bull's-eyes, deadlights, and blinds — in short, all openings, holes, chinks, and fissures through which the light of the sun is wont to enter houses, to the detriment of the fair industries with which, we are proud to say, we have endowed the country, a country that cannot, without betraying ingratitude, abandon us today to so unequal a combat.

Is hierarchy authoritarian? As in, all hierarchy, not just the aggressive-usurping kind.

It depends on how much unrighteous dominion is being exercised.

We ask you to be so good as to pass a law requiring the closing of all windows, dormers, skylights, inside and outside shutters, curtains, casements, bull's-eyes, deadlights, and blinds — in short, all openings, holes, chinks, and fissures through which the light of the sun is wont to enter houses, to the detriment of the fair industries with which, we are proud to say, we have endowed the country, a country that cannot, without betraying ingratitude, abandon us today to so unequal a combat.